CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Suchttherapie 2018; 19(03): 148-158
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-112067
Originalarbeit
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018

Cannabis und Schadensminderung in Deutschland

Cannabis and Harm Reduction in Germany
Jakob Manthey
1   Institut für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden
,
Heino Stöver
2   Institut für Suchtforschung (ISFF), Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt
,
Hans-Günter Meyer-Thompson
3   Ambulanz Altona, Klinik für Abhängigkeitserkrankungen, ASKLEPIOS Hamburg Nord Ochsenzoll, Hamburg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
11 July 2017 (online)

Zusammenfassung

Aktuelle drogenpolitische Diskussionen über Cannabis drehen sich v. a. darum, wie diese Substanz in Zukunft rechtlich reguliert werden soll. Angesichts des anhaltend weit verbreiteten Konsums und der damit verbundenen Risiken, sollten jedoch mögliche Strategien zur Reduzierung der potenziellen Schäden für Konsumierende und die Gesellschaft bei der Gestaltung einer adäquaten Cannabispolitik berücksichtigt werden. Dieser Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über verschiedene Möglichkeiten zur Reduzierung der Konsumrisiken und illustriert, inwieweit diese bereits in Deutschland implementiert sind.

Es lassen sich sowohl individuelle als auch strukturelle Ansätze zur Reduzierung cannabisbezogener Risiken identifizieren. Individuelle Ansätze zielen durch die Vermittlung von Informationen darauf ab, dass Individuen durch eine risikoarme Konsumpraxis selbstständig die Risiken reduzieren und somit potenziell Schäden vermeiden. Strukturelle Ansätze dagegen sollen das Konsumumfeld so gestalten, dass der Konsum mit möglichst geringen negativen Folgen einhergeht. In Deutschland sind sowohl individuelle als auch strukturelle Ansätze zur Schadensminderung von Cannabiskonsum nicht in ausreichendem Maße umgesetzt. Mögliche Gründe für eine mangelhafte Implementierung werden diskutiert und Potenzial für die Anwendung von schadensmindernden Strategien für Cannabis identifiziert.

Abstract

Current discussions on drug policy commonly focus on the future of the legal regulation of cannabis. Given the ongoing and prevalent use of cannabis and use-related risks, an adequate cannabis policy should consider available strategies to avoid possible harms for users and the society. This work gives an overview on various approaches to reduce use-related risks and describes the extent to which they are already implemented in Germany.

There are individual and structural approaches to reduce cannabis-related risks. Individual approaches promote information on safer use behaviors. Users following these advices can reduce risks and avoid potential harm. Structural approaches aim to alter the users’ environment to minimize adverse consequences of cannabis use. In Germany, the implementation of both individual and structural approaches is very limited. Possible reasons for insufficient implementation and the potential to apply harm reduction strategies are discussed.

 
  • Literatur

  • 1 Pfeiffer-Gerschel T, Jakob L, Dammer E. et al. Bericht 2015 des nationalen REITOX-Knotenpunkts an die EBDD. München: DBDD; 2015
  • 2 Pabst A, Kraus L, Matos EGd. et al. Substanzkonsum und substanzbezogene Störungen in Deutschland im Jahr 2012. Sucht 2013; 59: 321-331
  • 3 Orth B. Die Drogenaffinität Jugendlicher in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2015. Rauchen, Alkoholkonsum und Konsum illegaler Drogen: aktuelle Verbreitung und Trends. In, BZgA-Forschungsbericht. Köln: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung; 2016
  • 4 Hall W, Degenhardt L. The adverse health effects of chronic cannabis use. Drug testing and analysis 2013; 6: 39-45
  • 5 Hoch E, Bonnetn U, Thomasius R. et al. Risks associated with the non-medicinal use of cannabis. Deutsches Arzteblatt international 2015; 112: 271-278
  • 6 World Health Organization . The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use. In: Hall W, Renström M, Poznyak V. eds. Geneva: WHO Press; 2016
  • 7 Effertz T, Verheyen F, Linder R. Ökonomische und intangible Kosten des Cannabiskonsums in Deutschland. Sucht 2016; 62: 31-41
  • 8 Imtiaz S, Shield KD, Roerecke M. et al. The burden of disease attributable to cannabis use in Canada in 2012. Addiction 2016; 111: 653-662
  • 9 Simon R. Prohibition, Legalisierung, Dekriminalisierung: Diskussion einer Neugestaltung des Cannabisrechts. Sucht 2016; 62: 43-50
  • 10 Thomasius R, Holtmann M, Melchers P. et al. Für Sie notiert – Cannabispolitik in Deutschland hat sich bewährt. Suchttherapie 2016; 17: 57-59
  • 11 Ballotta D, Pfeiffer-Gerschel T, Goosdeel A. Is UNGASS 2016 the turning point in international drug policy?. Sucht 2016; 62: 59-60
  • 12 Tossmann P, Gantner A. Frühintervention, Beratung und Behandlung bei Cannabisstörungen. Suchttherapie 2016; 17: 85-89
  • 13 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction . European Drug Report 2016: Trends and Developments. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2016
  • 14 Williams J. The effects of price and policy on marijuana use: what can be learned from the Australian experience?. Health economics 2004; 13: 123-137
  • 15 van Ours JC, Williams J. Cannabis prices and dynamics of cannabis use. J Health Econ 2007; 26: 578-596
  • 16 Shi Y, Lenzi M, An R. Cannabis liberalization and adolescent cannabis use: A cross-national study in 38 countries. PloS one 2015; 10: e0143562
  • 17 Pacula RL, Kilmer B, Wagenaar AC. et al. Developing public health regulations for marijuana: Lessons from alcohol and tobacco. American Journal of Public Health 2014; 104: 1021-1028
  • 18 International Harm Reduction Association. Was ist Harm Reduction? Eine Erklärung der International Harm Reduction Association. (April 2010). Im Internet: https://www.hri.global/files/2010/06/01/Briefing_What_is_HR_German.pdf; Zugriff: 28.11.2016
  • 19 Michels II, Stöver H. Harm reduction–from a conceptual framework to practical experience: the example of Germany. Substance use & misuse 2012; 47: 910-922
  • 20 Meyer-Thompson H-G, Stöver H. Cannabiskonsum aus dem Blickwinkel von Schadensminderung/harm reduction und Public Health. In: Stöver H, Werse B. eds 3 Alternativer Drogen- und Suchtbericht 2016. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers; 2016
  • 21 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction . Harm reduction: evidence, impacts and challenges. In: Rhodes T, Hedrich D. eds. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010
  • 22 Cook C, Bridge J, Stimson GV. The diffusion of harm reduction in Europe and beyond. In: Rhodes T, Hedrich D. eds Harm reduction: evidence, impacts and challenges. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010: 37-58
  • 23 MacArthur GJ, Minozzi S, Martin N. et al. Opiate substitution treatment and HIV transmission in people who inject drugs: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj 2012; 345: e5945
  • 24 Dichtl A, Stöver H, Dettmer K. „Naloxon kann Leben retten!“ – Take-Home-Naloxon-Programme als Prophylaxe tödlicher Drogennotfälle [“Naloxone Can Save Lives!” – Take-Home Naloxone Programs as Prophylaxis of Opiate Overdose Fatalities]. Suchttherapie 2016; 17: 137-143
  • 25 Beletsky L, Rich JD, Walley AY. Prevention of fatal opioid overdose. JAMA 2012; 308: 1863-1864
  • 26 World Health Organisation . Community management of opioid overdose. Geneva: WHO Press; 2014
  • 27 Herring R, Thom B, Beccaria F. et al. Alcohol harm reduction in Europe. In: Rhodes T, Hedrich D. eds Harm reduction: evidence, impacts and challenges. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010: 275-302
  • 28 Gartner C, Hall W, McNeill A. Harm reduction policies for tobacco. In: Rhodes T, Hedrich D. eds Harm reduction: evidence, impacts and challenges. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010: 255-274
  • 29 Hall W, Fischer B. Harm reduction policies for cannabis. In: Rhodes T, Hedrich D. eds Harm reduction: evidence, impacts and challenges. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010: 235-254
  • 30 American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5. Aufl. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013
  • 31 World Health Organization . The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1993
  • 32 Li MC, Brady JE, DiMaggio CJ. et al. Marijuana use and motor vehicle crashes. Epidemiologic reviews 2012; 34: 65-72
  • 33 Asbridge M, Hayden JA, Cartwright JL. Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis. Bmj 2012; 344: e536
  • 34 Wu C-S, Jew CP, Lu H-C. Lasting impacts of prenatal cannabis exposure and the role of endogenous cannabinoids in the developing brain. Future neurology 2011; 6: 459-480
  • 35 Moore THM, Zammit S, Lingford-Hughes A. et al. Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review. The Lancet 2007; 370: 319-328
  • 36 Shrivastava A, Johnston M, Terpstra K. et al. Pathways to psychosis in cannabis abuse. Clinical Schizophrenia & Related Psychoses 2015; 9: 30-35
  • 37 Marconi A, Di Forti M, Lewis CM. et al. Meta-analysis of the Association Between the Level of Cannabis Use and Risk of Psychosis. Schizophrenia bulletin 2016; DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbw003.
  • 38 Crane NA, Schuster RM, Fusar-Poli P. et al. Effects of cannabis on neurocognitive functioning: recent advances, neurodevelopmental influences, and sex differences. Neuropsychology review 2013; 23: 117-137
  • 39 Walsh Z, Gonzalez R, Crosby K. et al. Medical cannabis and mental health: A guided systematic review. Clin Psychol Rev 2016; 51: 15-29
  • 40 Joshi M, Joshi A, Bartter T. Marijuana and lung diseases. Current opinion in pulmonary medicine 2014; 20: 173-179
  • 41 Tashkin DP. Effects of marijuana smoking on the lung. Annals of the American Thoracic Society 2013; 10: 239-247
  • 42 Franz CA, Frishman WH. Marijuana use and cardiovascular disease. Cardiology in review 2016; 24: 158-162
  • 43 Butterworth P, Slade T, Degenhardt L. Factors associated with the timing and onset of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder: results from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Drug and alcohol review 2014; 33: 555-564
  • 44 Noack R, Hofler M, Lueken U. Cannabis use patterns and their association with DSM-IV cannabis dependence and gender. Eur Addict Res 2011; 17: 321-328
  • 45 Aldington S, Harwood M, Cox B. et al. Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case-control study. The European respiratory journal 2008; 31: 280-286
  • 46 Mukamal KJ, Maclure M, Muller JE. et al. An exploratory prospective study of marijuana use and mortality following acute myocardial infarction. American heart journal 2008; 155: 465-470
  • 47 Ramaekers JG, Berghaus G, van Laar M. et al. Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use. Drug and alcohol dependence 2004; 73: 109-119
  • 48 Bolla KI, Brown K, Eldreth D. et al. Dose-related neurocognitive effects of marijuana use. Neurology 2002; 59: 1337-1343
  • 49 Danielsson AK, Falkstedt D, Hemmingsson T. et al. Cannabis use among Swedish men in adolescence and the risk of adverse life course outcomes: results from a 20 year-follow-up study. Addiction 2015; 110: 1794-1802
  • 50 Degenhardt L, Ferrari AJ, Calabria B. et al. The global epidemiology and contribution of cannabis use and dependence to the global burden of disease: results from the GBD 2010 study. PloS one 2013; 8: e76635
  • 51 Fischer B, Imtiaz S, Rudzinski K. et al. Crude estimates of cannabis-attributable mortality and morbidity in Canada-implications for public health focused intervention priorities. Journal of public health 2016; 38: 183-188
  • 52 Furtwaengler NA, de Visser RO. Lack of international consensus in low-risk drinking guidelines. Drug and alcohol review 2013; 32: 11-18
  • 53 Wise J. NICE calls for safer use of controlled drugs. Bmj 2016; 353: i2137
  • 54 Fischer B, Jeffries V, Hall W. et al. Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines for Canada (LRCUG): A narrative review of evidence and recommendations. Can J Public Health 2011; 102: 324-327
  • 55 Fischer B, Russell C, Brink Wvd et al. Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines (LRCUG): A comprehensive update of evidence and recommendations. American Journal of Public Health epub, doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.30381
  • 56 Swift W, Copeland J, Lenton S. Cannabis and harm reduction. Drug and alcohol review 2000; 19: 101-112
  • 57 Grotenhermen F. Harm reduction associated with inhalation and oral administration of cannabis and THC. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 2001; 1: 133-152
  • 58 Hathaway AW, Erickson PG. Drug reform principles and policy debates: harm reduction prospects for cannabis in Canada. Journal of Drug Issues 2003; 33: 465-495
  • 59 Kerr WC, Stockwell T. Understanding standard drinks and drinking guidelines. Drug and alcohol review 2012; 31: 200-205
  • 60 Casajuana C, López-Pelayo H, Balcells MM. et al. Working on a standard joint unit: A pilot test. Adicciones 2016; DOI: 10.20882/adicciones.721. 2016 doi: 10.20882/adicciones.721, Publish Date: 2016 Sep 29
  • 61 Ridgeway G, Kilmer B. Bayesian inference for the distribution of grams of marijuana in a joint. Drug & Alcohol Dependence 2016; 165: 175-180
  • 62 Wetherill RR, Hager N, Guthier E. et al. Gram Years: A method to standardize and quantify lifetime cannabis consumption. Cannabis and cannabinoid research 2016; 1: 216-217
  • 63 Di Forti M, Marconi A, Carra E. et al. Proportion of patients in south London with first-episode psychosis attributable to use of high potency cannabis: a case-control study. The Lancet Psychiatry 2015; 2: 233-238
  • 64 Coyne J. Cannabis and psychosis. The Lancet Psychiatry 2015; 2: 380-381
  • 65 Abrams DI, Vizoso HP, Shade SB. et al. Vaporization as a smokeless cannabis delivery system: a pilot study. Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics 2007; 82: 572-578
  • 66 Gieringer DH. Cannabis “Vaporization”: A Promising Strategy for Smoke Harm Reduction. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 2001; 1: 153-170
  • 67 Earleywine M, Barnwell SS. Decreased respiratory symptoms in cannabis users who vaporize. Harm Reduct J 2007; 4: 11
  • 68 Gartner CE. Mull it over: cannabis vaporizers and harm reduction. Addiction 2015; 110: 1709-1710
  • 69 Malouff JM, Rooke SE, Copeland J. Experiences of marijuana-vaporizer users. Substance abuse 2014; 35: 127-128
  • 70 Tashkin DP. How benefecial is vaping cannabis to respiratory health compared to smoking?. Addiction 2015; 110: 1706-1707
  • 71 Budney AJ, Sargent JD, Lee DC. Vaping cannabis (marijuana): parallel concerns to e-cigs?. Addiction 2015; 110: 1699-1704
  • 72 Fischer B. Cannabis vaping and public health - some comments on relevance and implications. Addiction 2015; 110: 1705-1706
  • 73 Dubois S, Mullen N, Weaver B. et al. The combined effects of alcohol and cannabis on driving: Impact on crash risk. Forensic science international 2015; 248: 94-100
  • 74 Piontek D, Kraus L, Klempova D. Short scales to assess cannabis-related problems: a review of psychometric properties. Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy 2008; 3: 25
  • 75 Faggiano F, Minozzi S, Versino E. et al. Universal school-based prevention for illicit drug use. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2014; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003020.pub3:. CD003020
  • 76 Teesson M, Newton NC, Barrett EL. Australian school-based prevention programs for alcohol and other drugs: a systematic review. Drug and alcohol review 2012; 31: 731-736
  • 77 Champion KE, Newton NC, Barrett EL. et al. A systematic review of school-based alcohol and other drug prevention programs facilitated by computers or the internet. Drug and alcohol review 2013; 32: 115-123
  • 78 Porath-Waller AJ, Beasley E, Beirness DJ. A meta-analytic review of school-based prevention for cannabis use. Health education & behavior: the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education 2010; 37: 709-723
  • 79 Norberg MM, Kezelman S, Lim-Howe N. Primary prevention of cannabis use: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. PloS one 2013; 8: e53187
  • 80 Vogl LE, Newton NC, Champion KE et al. A universal harm-minimisation approach to preventing psychostimulant and cannabis use in adolescents: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy 2014; 9:
  • 81 Newton NC, Teesson M, Vogl LE. et al. Internet-based prevention for alcohol and cannabis use: final results of the Climate Schools course. Addiction 2010; 105: 749-759
  • 82 Midford R, Cahill H, Foxcroft D. et al. Drug education in Victorian schools (DEVS): the study protocol for a harm reduction focused school drug education trial. BMC public health 2012; 12: 112
  • 83 Hawthorne G, Garrard J, Dunt D. Does Life Education’s drug education programme have a public health benefit?. Addiction 1995; 90: 205-215
  • 84 Bonomo YA, Bowes G. Putting harm reduction into an adolescent context. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 2001; 37: 5-8
  • 85 Midford R. Does drug education work?. Drug and alcohol review 2000; 19: 441-446
  • 86 Hawthorne G. Drug education: myth and reality. Drug and alcohol review 2001; 20: 111-119
  • 87 Tupper KW. Teaching teachers to just say “know”: Reflections on drug education. Teaching and Teacher Education 2008; 24: 356-367
  • 88 Fischer B, Jones W, Shuper P et al. 12-month follow-up of an exploratory ‘brief intervention’ for high-frequency cannabis users among Canadian university students. Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy 2012; 7 (15)
  • 89 Babor TF, McRee BG, Kassebaum PA. et al. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): toward a public health approach to the management of substance abuse. Substance abuse 2007; 28: 7-30
  • 90 O’Donnell A, Anderson P, Newbury-Birch D. et al. The impact of brief alcohol interventions in primary healthcare: a systematic review of reviews. Alcohol Alcohol 2014; 49: 66-78
  • 91 Kaner EF, Beyer F, Dickinson HO. et al. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2007; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004148.pub3:. CD004148
  • 92 World Health Organization . Global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2010
  • 93 Schaub MP, Wenger A, Berg O. et al. A web-based self-help intervention with and without chat counseling to reduce cannabis use in problematic cannabis users: three-arm randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical Internet research 2015; 17: e232
  • 94 Copeland J, Swift W, Roffman R. et al. A randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive–behavioral interventions for cannabis use disorder. Journal of substance abuse treatment 2001; 21: 55-64
  • 95 Benard V, Rolland B, Messaadi N. et al. Cannabis use: what to do in general practice?. Presse medicale 2015; 44: 707-715
  • 96 Potier C, Laprevote V, Dubois-Arber F. et al. Supervised injection services: what has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review. Drug and alcohol dependence 2014; 145: 48-68
  • 97 Martin-Santos R, Crippa JA, Batalla A. et al. Acute Effects of a Single, Oral Dose of D9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Cannabidiol (CBD) Administration in Healthy Volunteers. Curr Pharm Des 2012; 18: 4966-4979
  • 98 Iseger TA, Bossong MG. A systematic review of the antipsychotic properties of cannabidiol in humans. Schizophrenia research 2015; 162: 153-161
  • 99 Crepault JF, Rehm J, Fischer B. The Cannabis Policy Framework by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: A proposal for a public health approach to cannabis policy in Canada. The International journal on drug policy 2016; DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.04.013.
  • 100 Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation . A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada. In: Canada H. ed. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2016
  • 101 Government of Canada . Legalizing and strictly regulating cannabis: the facts. Ottawa: 2017
  • 102 Schroers A. Drug-Checking - ein sichereres Verfahren für Harm-Reduction und Monitoring?. In: Gaßman R, Bartsch G, Kepp J. (Hrsg.) Jahrburch Sucht 2015. Hamm: Deutsche Hauptstelle für Suchtfragen; 2015
  • 103 Brunt TM, Niesink RJM. The Drug Information and Monitoring System (DIMS) in the Netherlands: Implementation, results, and international comparison. Drug testing and analysis 2011; 3: 621-634
  • 104 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction . An inventory of on-site pill-testing interventions in the EU. In: Burkhart G. ed. Lisbon: EMCDDA; 2001
  • 105 Brunt TM, Nagy C, Bucheli A. et al. Drug testing in Europe: monitoring results of the Trans European Drug Information (TEDI) project. Drug testing and analysis 2016; DOI: 10.1002/dta.1954.
  • 106 Hungerbuehler I, Buecheli A, Schaub M. Drug Checking: A prevention measure for a heterogeneous group with high consumption frequency and polydrug use - evaluation of zurich’s drug checking services. Harm Reduction Journal 2011; 8 (16)
  • 107 Pijlman FT, Rigter SM, Hoek J. et al. Strong increase in total delta-THC in cannabis preparations sold in Dutch coffee shops. Addiction biology 2005; 10: 171-180
  • 108 Rigter S, Niesink R. THC-concentraties in wiet, nederwiet en hasj in Nederlandse coffeeshops (2015–2016)
  • 109 Shanahan M, Ritter A. Cost benefit analysis of two policy options for cannabis: status quo and legalisation. PloS one 2014; 9: e95569
  • 110 Apfel F. Cannabis – From Prohibition to Regulation: “When the music changes so does the dance”
  • 111 Stevenson B. Drug policy, criminal justice and mass imprisonment. Geneva: Global comission on drug policies; 2011
  • 112 Wodak A, Reinarman C, Cohen PDA. Cannabis control: costs outweigh the benefits. Br Med J 2002; 324: 105-108
  • 113 Hall W, Lynskey M. Evaluating the public health impacts of legalizing recreational cannabis use in the USA. Addiction 2016; DOI: 10.1111/add.13428.
  • 114 Hall W, Lynskey M. The challenges in developing a rational cannabis policy. Current opinion in psychiatry 2009; 22: 258-262
  • 115 Die Drogenbeauftragte der Bundesregierung . Nationale Strategie zur Drogen- und Suchtpolitik. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Gesundheit; 2012
  • 116 European Council . Drugs Strategy. In: General Secretariat of the Council ed, 2013-2020. Brussel: European Council; 2013
  • 117 Deutsche Hauptstelle für Suchtfragen. Cannabis Basisinformationen. Im Internet: http://www.dhs.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Broschueren/Basisinfo_Cannabis.pdf; Zugriff: 28.11.2016
  • 118 Therapieladen e.V. Cannabis denn Sünde sein . Eine Broschüre rund ums Kiffen. Mit dem ersten Kiffertest. In. Berlin: 1998
  • 119 Fischer B. Drugs, Communities, and "Harm Reduction" in Germany: The new relevance of "Public Health". Principles in local responses Journal of Public Health Policy 1995; 16: 389-411
  • 120 Hanewinkel R, Wiborg G. Effektivität verhaltenspräventiver Interventionen zur Suchtvorbeugung. Suchttherapie 2003; 4: 183-191
  • 121 Kim J-I. Paradigmenwechsel in der Suchtprävention: akzeptierende Drogenerziehung. Theorie und Praxis der sozialen Arbeit 2004; 55: 18-25
  • 122 Kraus L, Pabst A, Piontek D. Europäische Schülerstudie zu Alkohol und anderen Drogen 2011 (ESPAD). München: Institut für Therapieforschung; 2011
  • 123 Behrendt S, Wittchen HU, Hofler M. et al. Transitions from first substance use to substance use disorders in adolescence: is early onset associated with a rapid escalation?. Drug and alcohol dependence 2009; 99: 68-78
  • 124 Klein M. Geschichte der Suchtprävention. In: Hoff T, Klein M. (Hrsg.) Evidenzbasierung in der Suchtprävention: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen in Praxis und Forschung. Berlin: Springer; 2015: 37-42
  • 125 Barsch G. Drogenerziehung in der Praxis. In: Barsch G. ed Projektideen zur Förderung der Drogenmündigkeit. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa; 2016
  • 126 Wolstein J. Evidenzbasierte Medizin: Vorbild für die Suchtprävention?. In: Hoff T, Klein M. (Hrsg.) Evidenzbasierung in der Suchtprävention Möglichkeiten und Grenzen in Praxis und Forschung. Berlin: Springer; 2015: 57-65
  • 127 Midford R. Drug prevention programmes for young people: where have we been and where should we be going?. Addiction 2010; 105: 1688-1695
  • 128 Bonnet U, Harries-Hedder K, Leweke FM. et al. AWMF-Leitlinie: Cannabisbezogene Störungen. Fortschr Neurol Psychiat 2004; 72: 318-329
  • 129 Hildebrand A, Sonntag D, Bauer C. et al. Versorgung Suchtkranker in Deutschland: Ergebnisse der Suchthilfestatistik 2007. Sucht 2009; 55: 15-34
  • 130 Brand H, Künzel J, Pfeiffer-Gerschel T. et al. Cannabisbezogene Störungen in der Suchthilfe: Inanspruchnahme, Klientel und Behandlungserfolg. Sucht 2016; 62: 9-21
  • 131 Görgen W, Hartmann R, Oliva H. Frühintervention bei erstauffälligen Drogenkonsumenten – FreD: Abschlussbericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung.
  • 132 Tossmann P, Kasten L. Realize it - Abschlussbericht des Bundestransfers von „Realize it“.
  • 133 Tossmann HP, Jonas B, Tensil MD. et al. A controlled trial of an internet-based intervention program for cannabis users. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking 2011; 14: 673-679
  • 134 Cousto H, Harrach T, Kollwitz S. et al. Drug-Checking-Konzept für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: Cousto H, Harrach T, Hentschel A. et al. eds Konzeptioneller Vorschlag zur Organisation von Drug-Checking. Berlin: techno-netzwerk berlin; 2000
  • 135 Bundeskriminalamt. Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr 2016. In: Bundeskriminalamt ed; 2017
  • 136 Cousto H, Stöver H. Repression und kein Ende?! Eine Würdigung der aktuellen polizeilichen Zahlen zur Kriminalisierung von Drogengebraucher_innen. In 4 Alternativer Drogen- und Suchtbericht 2017. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers; 2017
  • 137 Schäfer C, Paoli L. Drogen und Strafverfolgung: Die Anwendung des § 31 a BtMG und anderer Opportunitätsvorschriften auf Drogenkonsumentendelikte. Freiburg. 2006
  • 138 Böllinger L, Quensel S. Drugs and driving: Dangerous youths or anxious adults?. Journal of Drug Issues 2002; 32: 553-566
  • 139 Wong K, Brady JE, Li G. Establishing legal limits for driving under the influence of marijuana. Injury Epidemiology 2014; 1(26)
  • 140 Grotenhermen F, Leson G, Berghaus G. et al. Developing limits for driving under cannabis. Addiction 2007; 102: 1910-1917
  • 141 Nutt DJ, King LA, Phillips LD. et al. Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis. Lancet 2010; 376: 1558-1565
  • 142 Singleton N, Strang J. What would an evidence based drug policy be like?. Bmj 2014; 349: g7493
  • 143 Stafford N. Germany considers legalising cannabis for medical use. Bmj 2015; 351: h5952
  • 144 Rehm J, Shield KD, Rehm MX. et al. Alcohol consumption, alcohol dependence, and attributable burden of disease in Europe: potential gains from effective interventions for alcohol dependence. Toronto, Canada: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; 2012
  • 145 Piontek D, Kraus L, Bjarnason T. et al. Individual and country-level effects of cannabis-related perceptions on cannabis use. A multilevel study among adolescents in 32 European countries. The Journal of adolescent health: official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine 2013; 52: 473-479
  • 146 Hindocha C, Freeman TP, Ferris JA. et al. No Smoke without Tobacco: A global overview of cannabis and tobacco routes of administration and their association with intention to quit. Frontiers in psychiatry 2016; 7: 104
  • 147 Lau N, Sales P, Averill S. et al. Responsible and controlled use: Older cannabis users and harm reduction. The International journal on drug policy 2015; 26: 709-718